Re: keyboard/mouse programming

Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in part:
Using competitors ability to push down prices as a determinant of
establishing that a corporation is a monopoly seems a bit "flaky" to me.

Maybe so, but that's the law.

Competitors prices can only push down the prices of
substitutable goods. It won't push down non-substitutable
goods such as luxury items. Due to the existence of
Linux, it can be claimed that Windows is a luxury item,
non-substitutable, and not a monopolistic good

US law applies to luxury goods without distinction.

All that "pricing power" proves is that there is either
demand for the product or a shortage of the product.

No. Pricing power proves a firm can engage in anti-competitive
behaviour and harm the public by increasing prices.

It doesn't prove "why"... There are many valid reasons why
a product has "pricing power": supply, demand, branding,
quality, cost, location, non-substitutable item - luxury
good, etc.

Maybe so, but pricing power also brings with it the power
to "harm the public", and so is regulated. Please note,
I am not advocating for or against anti-trust, I'm merely
trying to describe it as exists AFAIK. IANAL.

If found guilty of being a monopolist, the courts could order
them to terminate all business permanently and dismantle
their corporation.

Certainly not! At least not under US law.

NFL, Great A&P Tea, AT&T...?

Yes, after they engaged in anticompetitive behaviour.
It's not the monopoly but the behaviour.

US law recognizes this and does not ban monopolies per se.

Seems like a legal system interpretation... Probably
violates the intent of the law. Just how do you "monopolize"
without actually being a monopoly or becoming a monopoly in
the process? They'd have to have redefined "monopolize" to
mean something like "engage in anti-competitive behavior"...

No. Although the Sherman Act is utterly blistering,
it was tempered by the "Rule of Reason"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Reason

Prior to globalization when the US was the primary large economy,
this made sense. The US government could regulate the entire market.

You think they've stopped trying? The US is notorious
for extraterritoriality, and antitrust is no exception.
Any foreign acts which affect the US market are punishable.


to create competition and reduce costs benefits the economy.
It was probably actually a negative effect.

Irrelevant. Law is law. Antitrust is particularly nasty
since actual harm often doesn't need to be proven for
"pro se" offenses.

In this scenario, restricting the growth of a US monopoly
only accomplishes one thing: capture of market share by
non-US entities, likely to be monopolies.

Nope. They play hardball. That entity would have to comply
with US law if it exports to the US. Or affects the US
market. Execs would be jailed if they tried to enter the
US. I believe some from deBeers were. Cuban Embargo-style.

We're killing our own companies and economy.

I'm not sure I wish to encourage a "race to the bottom"
in competion standards any more than in environmental
standards or human rights.

Just like we're selling our own companies to
foreigners because of the high gas prices...

Naturally. Because we insist on driving SUVs long distances
they get the money. Because the owners are profit-oriented,
they sell. This is the choice of the American people.

I'm surprised you mentioned Intel.

It has pricing power. If intel raised prices 20%, AMD would
have the choice of raising output or prices. If their Fabs
are full (and they should be), they'd raise prices.

AMD sells very well to people who build their own PC's
and has for at least a decade. AMD seems to compete very
well with Intel on performance and price.

Fully agreed. But the presence of a viable competitor
does not necessarily eliminate pricing power.

"Just who is buying so many Intel cpu's as to push AMD out
of the market? And, why are they buying Intel cpu's when
they aren't as advantageous, especially on price?"

Dell believes in the Dancing Blue Men!

why does Intel have all the pricing power and AMD have
none for substitutable goods?

No, if AMD raised prices, there's a good chance Intel
would follow. Kind of like gas stations. They all
have pricing power. So all must behave.


-- Robert


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Another brand new shiny suit
    ... What track owners ARE entitled to is a fair chance to compete for those ... When some of the tracks in the competition for Cup dates are in ... >obviously NOT a fair competition and hence is a violation of the law. ... attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. ...
    (rec.autos.sport.nascar.moderated)
  • Re: Conceptualizing Che Guevara in Cuba
    ... American constitutionalism, how the State cannot monopolize the law, ... and a growing respect for new plurality. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)